ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Spam

2003-05-31 16:13:57
Paul writes:

the whole installed base is in incredible pain
right now ...

Oooh ... let's not jump off the deep end here.  Spam is a nuisance for most
Internet users, not an "incredible pain."  It's very important to
distinguish between something that does real damage and something that
merely annoys.

... and there will be a lot of sites like mine who will
switch over early, turning off their tcp/25 service, as
soon as we think there are reasonable alternatives for
reaching us.

Don't hold your breath.

... and the vast majority of non-mega-networks is feeling
no ipv4 pain at all.

The same is true for spam.

like i said, the motivation is overwhelming.

I don't think so.  Apart from a minority of power users, most people aren't
exactly fuming over spam.  It's a nuisance, like postal junk mail, but it's
not a preoccupation.

i am damned close to turning off tcp/25 even if the
only alternative is telco and fax and netnews and web.

Then perhaps you should do so.  It sounds like you're on the verge of a
heart attack right now.

SO, telling me that moving 100M users is hard, won't
make me believe it.

And not believing it won't make it any less true.  Think IMAP, encryption
and digital signatures (built in to OE for years now, never used by anyone),
PNG (around since forever, but still practically ignored), and so on.

if newproto doesn't work because the firewall or nat
or whatever only allows tcp/25 sessions, then give up
and use the telephone or fax machine.

Wow!  You must have an unusual user community.  In some organizations, you'd
be fired for having an attitude like that.

that stuff is all crutches and bandaids while what's
needed is a whole new monster.

Nothing that depends on automation will work, because no automated system
can distinguish between spam and legitimate e-mail.  Any system will require
human intervention.  And human intervention is likely to be an obstacle to
implementation and compliance if human users see it as more trouble than it
is worth.  And human users who are not drowning in spam (and most aren't)
will be disinclined to favor any kind of human intervention at all.

my reason for making "all communications must be
consensual" as the key design criteria for a new
interpersonal batch communication system is that
it's what i've always believed ...

That's equivalent to having a screening device on your telephone that only
rings the phone if callers dial a certain number code.  This works for a
handful of telephone subscribers, but for most others, it is simply not
practical.  In most situations, you must be able to accepted unsolicited
communications, without requiring any kind of prior consent.





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>